NEW YORK — The Boys Scouts of America is considering a dramatic retreat from its controversial policy of excluding gays as leaders and youth members.

Under the change now being discussed, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue — either maintaining an exclusion of gays or opening up their membership.

Monday’s announcement of the possible change comes after years of protests over the policy — including petition campaigns that have prompted some corporations to suspend donations to the Boy Scouts.

Under the proposed change, said BSA spokesman Deron Smith, “the Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents.”

The Boys Scouts, which celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2010, has long excluded both gays and atheists. Smith said a change in the policy toward atheists was not being considered, and that the BSA continued to view “Duty to God” as one of its basic principles.

Protests over the no-gays policy gained momentum in 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the BSA’s right to exclude gays. Scout units lost sponsorships by public schools and other entities that adhered to nondiscrimination policies, and several local Scout councils made public their displeasure with the policy.

More recently, amid petition campaigns, shipping giant UPS Inc. and drug-manufacturer Merck announced that they were halting donations from their charitable foundations to the Boy Scouts as long as the no-gays policy was in force.

Also, local Scout officials drew widespread criticism in recent months for ousting Jennifer Tyrrell, a lesbian mom, as a den leader of her son’s Cub Scout pack in Ohio and for refusing to approve an Eagle Scout application by Ryan Andresen, a California teen who came out as gay last fall.

“An end to this ban will restore dignity to countless families across the country, my own included, who simply wanted to take part in all scouting has to offer,” Tyrrell said. “My family loved participating in scouting, and I look forward to the day when we might once again be able to take part.”

Many of the protest campaigns, including one seeking Tyrrell’s reinstatement, had been waged with help from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

“The Boy Scouts of America have heard from scouts, corporations and millions of Americans that discriminating against gay scouts and scout leaders is wrong,” said Herndon Graddick, GLAAD’s president. “Scouting is a valuable institution, and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

The Scouts had reaffirmed the no-gays policy as recently as last year, and appeared to have strong backing from conservative religious denominations — notably the Mormons, Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists — which sponsor large numbers of Scout units. Under the proposed change, they could continue excluding gays.

Smith said the change could be announced as early as next Wednesday, after BSA’s national board holds a regularly scheduled meeting.

Were the change adopted, he said, “there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.

“BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families,” he said. “Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”

The announcement came shortly after new data showed that membership in the Cub Scouts — the BSA’s biggest division — dropped sharply last year, and was down nearly 30 percent over the past 14 years.

According to figures provided by the organization, Cub Scout ranks dwindled by 3.4 percent, from 1,583,166 in 2011 to 1,528,673 in 2012. That’s down from 2.17 million in 1998.

The Boy Scouts attribute the decline largely to broad social changes, including the allure of video games and the proliferation of youth sports leagues and other options for after-school activities.

However, critics of the Scouts suggest that its recruitment efforts have been hampered by high-profile controversies — notably the court-ordered release of files dealing with sex abuse allegations and persistent protests over the no-gays policy.

The BSA’s overall “traditional youth membership” — Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Venturers — totaled 2,658,794 in 2012, compared to more than 4 million in peak years of the past. There were 910,668 Boy Scouts last year, a tiny increase from 2011, while the ranks of Venturers — a program for youths 14 and older— declined by 5.5 percent.

In addition to flak over the no-gays policy, the Scouts have been buffeted by multiple court cases related to past allegations of sexual abuse by Scout leaders, including those chronicled in long-confidential records that are widely known as the “perversion files.”

Through various cases, the Scouts have been forced to reveal files dating from the 1960s to 1991. They detailed numerous cases where abuse claims were made and Boy Scout officials never alerted authorities and sometimes actively sought to protect the accused.

The Scouts are now under a California court order, affirmed this month by the state Supreme Court, to turn over sex-abuse files from 1991 through 2011 to the lawyers for a former Scout who claims a leader molested him in 2007, when he was 13. It’s not clear how soon the files might become public.

The BSA has apologized for past lapses and cover-ups, and has stressed the steps taken to improve youth protection policy. Since 2010, for example, it has mandated that any suspected abuse be reported to police.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

My dad was an Eagle Scout and a Scout Master. I never quite got to Eagle Scout, but I enjoyed my time in the scouts. The question of an individual's sexuality never came up all those years ago when I was in the organization. The Boy Scouts should get with it and not go out of its way to discriminate against those that are different. Banning and discriminating is no way to conduct a youth social organization. In addition, young people today are far more tolerant than their parents and grandparents were. We shouldn't make a big deal out of what they don't think is a big deal. Thankfully, losing donors has made the organization think twice about practicing discrimination. Good.

when I was younger I was in scouts. The scoutmastet molested me. He was married and had children. He was a sexual predator. People who are not closeted are not interested in molesting children as many of us were molested at a young age .

“Scouting is a valuable institution, and this change will only strengthen its core principles of fairness and respect.”

As an Eagle Scout I couldn't agree more with this opinion. Of the many things scouting has taught me through the years, bigotry was not one of them. To group homosexuals with sexual predators and child molesters in an argument against allowing gays and lesbians in the organization reeks of ignorance.

... boys will be allowed into the girl scouts and vice versa? Will there be male scoutmasters taking little girls camping? Why not? Are you saying homosexuals can control their desires but heterosexuals can't? Isn't that rather presumptuous?

The problem is that You DON'T KNOW ME. Other than what little bits of my life that I reveal in these forums.

So, I will give you and everyone else who wants to act/write like an ignorant fool a few facts:

First, I am an over-50 heterosexual female who has been Married to the same Man for the past 33 years. We were married in the Baptist Church where I worshiped in my home town in front of God, friends and family. I take the vows that we made and the Sacrament of Marriage VERY seriously.

Together we raised 2 children-a boy and a girl-to their adulthood when they 'left the nest'. Both have Masters' Degrees and jobs. One is a teacher who is married to a career military officer and we have 2 grandchildren. The other is a banker who is enjoying the single heterosexual life for now.

When my children were growing up I WAS the censor. I saw the movies, read the books and watched the TV shows that they wanted to explore because 'everyone else was doing it'. We had a mutual agreement that if I thought that something was not appropriate for them that I would explain WHY I was not allowing them to see it. (This is called teaching children how to THINK and make CHOICES). If anyone picked on one of my chicks or tried to back them into a corner they knew to use ME as the 'heavy'.

I WAS the chaperone for band trips, Girl and Boy scout activities and bothered to change my work schedule to be able to PARENT, which I consider to be the Most Important Job that anyone will ever do. I NEVER abdicated my responsibility to anyone or anything else.

The interesting thing? BOTH of my children tell me that they watched their friends whose parents did NOT do these things grow up with problems and no 'life skills'.

Am I a Perfect Parent? Not a chance. But I did the Job the old-fashioned way and I am anything BUT disappointed at the outcomes.

I watched over my children like the Red Hawk watches over her nest. Got a problem with that?

Right in your own little neighborhood. You probably did not get to read about checking to see how closely you live to a Registered Sex Offender because the SMN has deleted that post.

The liberal is the one who denies that such things DO exist and are 'shocked' and 'stunned' when they see what happens when you choose to ignore or allow the kinds of things which lead to tragedy and ruined lives.

A Conservative knows that if something looks too good to be true, it probably IS. I also know that one cannot let children 'raise themselves' by throwing money, a car or too much free rein their way. I have watched people do it and I have been criticized for being vigilant. In my family we call it 'looking out for each other.'.

And guess what? My kids still call me every day 'just to check on me'.

That evil doesn't exist, but you are vilifying an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Do you honestly believe that there are no gays in the Boy Scouts? With 1.5 million members and thousands of Scout "masters" (I love THAT title), there's got to be hundreds or even thousands of "closeted" gays. The Boy Scouts are free to allow or deny anybody they like, of course. If they decide to allow openly gay members as scouts of "leaders", that is their decision and their decision alone. You can keep your flock safe the way you want, but you should let other people do the same.